The Three Parthenons

The terms of the controversy changed completely in 1892 when Wilhelm
Dörpfeld, by examining what had been exposed by Kavvadias’ excavations,
proved that the temple of Athena destroyed by the Persians in 480 B.C.
was to the north of the Parthenon and not below it, as had been assumed
a priori up to that time. The immediate reaction of scholarly opinion
was to reject completely Ross’ conclusion that the structures found underneath
the Parthenon are the remains of an earlier temple. The only scholar who
opposed this trend was Penrose who in 1891 argued that the Temple of Athena
destroyed by the Persians was located where there was later erected the
Parthenon. The reason for which he clung stubbornly to what had been the
current view up to 1885, was his incorrect analysis of the measurements
of the column drums imbedded in the north wall of the Acropolis. Since
he had concluded that these column drums do not belong to the Parthenon,
he had to maintain that they belong to an earlier temple similar to the
Parthenon, though not to the temple uncovered just north of it. Penrose,
albeit for the wrong reasons, stressed the concrete and unquestionable
fact that the substructure of the Parthenon must have been erected for
a different temple. Scholars were then glossing over this fact because
they could not accept the existence of a second temple of Athena antedating
the Persian invasion—all the texts clearly indicate that the Persians
destroyed only one temple of Athena.

The archaeological argument of Penrose impressed Dörpfeld, who was
most careful in matters of archaeology, when this is understood in a narrow
sense, but was inclined to take a cavalier attitude with historical evidence.
He was able to establish that the Parthenon designed by Iktinos was erected
on a substructure which reveals the existence of two earlier different
plans of the temple.1 Dörpfeld
spoke of a Parthenon I and of a Parthenon II, applying the term Parthenon
III to the temple with which we are familiar. He not only ascertained
the existence of these two proto-Parthenons, but was able to reconstruct
the dimensions of their ground plans; but these achievements have been
treated with some skepticism by scholars because he followed a false lead
in establishing the chronology of the proto-Parthenons and as a result
got involved in difficult or insoluble questions which obscured the soundness
of his contribution as far as strictly tectonic archaeology is concerned.

In an article of 1892 and in another published ten years later, Dörpfeld
applied himself to the identification of the characteristics of Parthenon
I.2 He concluded
that one could trace three steps of the platform of Parthenon I. The lowest
step was constituted by the top layer of the substructure (twenty-first
layer counting from the bottom of the southeast corner of the substructure),
the substructure being merely the extension downwards of this step. Another
step, which Dörpfeld considered the middle step, is recessed in relation
to the lowest step and the rest of the substructure. Dörpfeld thought
that he could identify also a third and higher step. This step is made
of Karrha limestone, a material hardier than the friable poros limestone,
but less sturdy than the Pentelic marble of the Periclean Parthenon. This
step is covered by the lowest step of the Periclean Parthenon (Parthenon
III in Dörpfeld’s later terminology, which I follow). Today there
is general agreement that inside the platform of Parthenon III there are
the remains of a step of Karrha limestone; but it has been argued that
Parthenon I had only two steps of poros limestone. The step of Karrha
limestone would belong to another, different temple, which was identified
later and was called Parthenon II by Dörpfeld.

In his article of 1892, Dörpfeld did not follow the contention of
Ross and Penrose that Parthenon I had been the victim of the Persian fire
of 480 B.C. He followed a different and sounder method of dating the substructure
and Parthenon I. It is evident that the substructure was built in the
same period as the south wall of the Acropolis. One of the functions of
this wall, was is called the Cimonian Wall, was to retain the earth filling
that covered the substructure and formed a terrace to the south of the
Parthenon. Only the four top layers of the substructure are finished on
their outer surface in a manner that indicates that they were intended
to be exposed, whereas the remaining lower layers show an irregular face
that obviously was intended to be buried underground. From Plutarch (Life
of Cimon, XIII) we learn that the south wall was built with the spoils
of the campaign conducted against the Persians by Cimon, a campaign that
culminated with the victory of Eurymedon (468 B.C.). Hence, Dörpfeld
concluded that the substructure and Parthenon I must be dated after 468
B.C.

Dörpfeld, by turning his attention to the steps of the platform
of Parthenon I, had positively proved that the substructure was built
for a temple different from Parthenon III. The archeological evidence
below the crépis of the Parthenon does not point to the existence
of a temple, but to the existence of a different plan of a temple. Logically,
Dörpfeld should have reached the conclusion, which was reached by
others much later, that the plan of the Parthenon was changed in the course
of execution. This would have led to the conclusion that the substructure
of the Parthenon belonged to the early stages of the construction of the
Parthenon itself; but his would have also led to the conclusion that the
south wall of the Acropolis, which is closely linked with the substructure,
must be dated to the time the Parthenon was in its early stages of construction,
and this was a conclusion considered unacceptable in Dörpfeld’s time.
Ross and Penrose had met with stubborn resistance when they argued that
under the Periclean Parthenon there were the remains of an older temple.
The same opposition continued to operate against Dörpfeld, although
he could present a stronger case. Dörpfeld felt the need to find
some specific argument to prove that the substructure of the Parthenon
and, hence, the proto-Parthenon existed at the time of the Persian invasion.
When confronted with this irrational opposition, Dörpfeld resorted
to the same desperate argument which had been used by Ross, the traces
of the Persian fire. Ross had spoken of traces of fire in the column drums
of Pentelic marble imbedded in the north wall and in those found scattered
to the east of the Parthenon; Dörpfeld claimed that traces of fire
are to be seen in the poros steps of the platform of Parthenon I. But
in order to claim that these traces of the Persian fire exist, Dörpfeld
had to completely alter his dating of Parthenon I. In his first article
of 1892 Dörpfeld, relying on the stratigraphic data gathered in Kavvadias’
excavations, had correctly concluded that the substructure, which is an
extension of the steps of Parthenon I, was built together with the Cimonian
Wall, that is, after 468 B.C.; but in 1902, since he claimed that the
steps of Parthenon I show traces of the fire of 480 B.C., he had to date
Parthenon I before this point in time. However, he had to reconcile this
dating with his discovery of the Old Temple. Dörpfeld understood
that the shift from Parthenon I to Parthenon II and from Parthenon II
to Parthenon III must be ascribed to some events of Athenian history but,
since he had little judgment in strictly historical matters, he completely
failed to identify these events. He propounded the hypothesis that after
the battle of Marathon (490 B.C.) the Athenians, in order to celebrate
this victory, began to erect a new temple which had reached the level
of the platform when the Persians came back in 480 B.C. On this occasion
the Persians would have put one fire not one, but two temples, the Old
Temple and the uncompleted Parthenon I.

Once he embarked upon this line of argument, Dörpfeld had to defend
his case by accumulating gratuitous suppositions. The lack of historical
evidence for the destruction of this second temple was to be explained
by assuming that it was under construction at the time of the Persian
invasion. To explain how the Persians could have put on fire a temple
which consisted merely of a stone platform—the destruction by fire of
Greek temples was usually caused by the conflagration of the wooden ceiling,
since stone walls and columns cannot be ignited—Dörpfeld imagined
that by 480 B.C. the Athenians had completed the platform of Parthenon
I and were in the process of erecting the columns. Some of the drums—those
intended for the bottom of the columns—would have been partly fluted,
whereas the others would have been as yet unfluted; some of the column
drums, those with bosses still in place, would not have been as yet put
into position, and, therefore, were at an even earlier stage of execution.
This would explain why the column drums imbedded in the north wall and
the similar ones found scattered throughout the Acropolis are in the vast
majority of cases still in the rough, as Penrose had correctly reported.
Dörpfeld contended that a wooden scaffold had been set up in order
to erect the columns; this scaffold would have been put on fire by the
Persians, damaging the column drums and the platform. From the measurements
we know that none of the drums that have been found belong to a level
of the columns higher than the third drum; hence, in order to follow Dörpfeld’s
theory of the scaffolding it is necessary to assume that the scaffolding
was erected when none of the drums that it was intended to lift had yet
been cut. But even if all of these suppositions were to be accepted, he
still had to explain how columns of Pentelic marble could have been placed
on top of a platform of poros limestone. This is incredible not only for
esthetic reasons, but for structural reasons as well, since poros limestone
would crumble under the pressure of columns of Pentelic marble, which
is a harder and heavier material. Dörpfeld thought that he could
turn around this difficulty by assuming that Parthenon I had a top step
of Karrha limestone, which is a material somewhat sturdier than poros
limestone. The highly contrived hypothesis of Dörpfeld should have
been rejected:

- because it had been proved that the substructure is contemporary
with the Cimonian Wall, a fact that Dörpfeld had original accepted
as evident

- because a temple of Pentelic marble would not have been erected
on a platform of limestone

- because the historical record shows that the Athenians would
not have started the construction of a great temple of such size and
cost (Pentelic marble temple) in the period 488-480 B.C.

In that period the Athenians had no reason to replace the Old Temple,
which had not yet been destroyed. The cost of the Pentelic marble Parthenon
heavily taxed the resources of Athens at the peak of her power; it was
made possible only by the economic exploitation of the Athenian Empire.
We know of only one building constructed specifically in gratitude for
the victory at Marathon—the modest structure known as the Treasury of
the Athenians at Delphi. The Athenians would not have engaged in a major
construction effort after the battle of Marathon, when a new attack was
expected. After their disaster at Marathon the Persians, in order to recoup
the prestige necessary to an imperial power, began to mobilize all the
resources of the Empire for a second and decisive attack. The second attack
was delayed until 480 B.C. because the preparations were extremely complex
and because in the meanwhile King Darius the Great died and the new king
Xerxes had to consolidate his power before assuming personal command of
the greatest military effort ever undertaken by the Persian Empire. In
a separate study I present precise numerical data revealing that for the
second campaign the Persians doubled the army which had an official table
of organization of 360,000 fighters, when fully mobilized, and doubled
the fleet, which had an official first line of 600 triremes, when fully
mobilized. But even without considering the numerical data which indicate
that the Persian king mobilized several million people, when support troops
and services are included, historians agree that the Persians began to
organize lines of transport and supply drops years in advance of 480 B.C.
The great miracle of history is that the Athenians did not decide to surrender
when the scale of the Persian preparations became known. The Athenians
decided to try their luck and invested whatever resources they had in
building the fleet which turned the tables on the Persians at the battle
of Salamis. The Athenians would have been utterly irresponsible if they
had invested their resources in the construction of the Parthenon. As
Otto Walter put it: ”There is little likelihood that after 490 B.C., when
the new Persian attack was to be expected, the Athenians had the money
and the leisure to start and carry through a project of such grandeur.”3

Dörpfeld was aware at least in part of all the weaknesses of his
hypothesis that Parthenon I was started in the period between the two
Persian campaigns. But he thought that all the objections could be removed
if there is proof that Parthenon I was destroyed by the fire of 480 B.C.
Hence he stated that the traces of this fire are to be seen; but although
the issue is crucial, he never undertook to submit specific evidence.
As to the traces of fire in the column drums, he limited himself to referring
to the lines of Ross which I have quoted earlier, adding: ”These important
observations can be verified by any visitor to the Acropolis.” In truth,
a visitor to the Acropolis could verify, although not as easily as suggested,
that the column drums are cracked, but this does not prove that they have
been cracked by fire. Actually the fact that the drums in question are
cracked proves that they are discarded pieces and were never part of a
standing temple. Later I shall consider evidence to the effect that the
cracks cannot be the result of fire, but in any case, Dörpfeld never
presented any possible connection between the fissures in the drums and
fire.

Dörpfeld passed quickly over the supposed trace of fire in the drums
of Pentelic marble and concentrated his attention on the traces of fire
in the steps of Parthenon I. Even though he asserted that his argument
stands or falls on the existence of these traces of fire, he dedicated
only a page to them.4 In
specific terms he states only that the stylobate step of Karrha limestone
is ”badly burned and damaged,” but considered decisive evidence ”the traces
of fire which can still be clearly recognized” in the two poros steps
below the marble steps of the present Parthenon. Dörpfeld stated
that these traces of fire were a most essential proof of his reconstruction
of the history of the Parthenon’s substructure. In 1908 Martin L. D’Ooge
pointed out that Dörpfeld had revived Ross’ theory that the substructure
had been erected before the Persian invasion and added: ”The most convincing
proof of this belief Dörpfeld finds first in the marks of the fire
(formerly observed also by Ross) on the marble drums and on the steps
of the building.” In 1934 Dinsmoor in reviewing the entire development
of scholarly opinion about the proto-Parthenon, when dealing with Dörpfeld’s
contention that it was pre-Persian, stated (p. 489):

”His most important evidence was the reconstruction of the data furnished
by Ross concerning the burnt Persian debris and the traces of fire on
the foundation and column drums; after verifying these traces of conflagration.
Dörpfeld returned to the earlier theory that the Older Parthenon
had been destroyed by fire in 480 B.C.”

The truth is, however, that the alleged verification of the existence
of the traces of fire had not taken place. One could expect that, concerning
such an essential element of his evidence, Dörpfeld would have provided
a detailed description, identifying the location, size and the appearance
of the traces of fire, but he never stated where these traces are to be
found and what they consist of. Instead of presenting facts he appealed
to authority: ”At my request numerous experts tested and verified these
important observations.” But most probably Dörpfeld was merely bluffing,
because when later the existence of these traces of fire was questioned,
he was not able to bring forth even one of the opinions or reports of
these alleged numerous experts. He never explained what was their supposed
field of expertise: were they chemists, mineralogists, fire insurance
investigators, or heads of fire departments? Many years later, when he
was directly challenged, Dörpfeld, instead of submitting the evidence,
tried to disclaim that he had made of point of the existence of traces
of fire in the poros steps.

Dörpfeld tried to gloss over the superficiality of this part of
his archaeological documentation by a show of accuracy on a detail. He
raised the question of how it would be possible to put on fire a temple
which allegedly consisted of the stylobate platform with a few column
drums on top of it, and answered it by declaring that, since the temple
was under construction the columns were surrounded by a wooden scaffolding.
It is amazing that for the following thirty years scholars accepted the
existence of this makeshift scaffolding as supporting the entire theory.

The assertion of the traces of fire was accepted so readily by the body
of scholars that those who denied their existence were saddled with the
burden of submitting a negative proof. It is difficult to provide proof
for the non-existence of something the location and nature of which is
not defined. Only in 1934 Walther Kolbe dared to question the existence
of these traces of fire: he obtained the opinion of a mineralogist to
the effect that the reddish streaks that appear in the drums identified
as part of the columns of the proto-Parthenon, have nothing to do with
fire. In 1940 Tschira proved that these drums are rejects from the construction
of the Parthenon, but as a preliminary step to his demonstration showed
also that they do not reveal traces of fire; not only are the reddish
streaks mentioned by Kolbe a normal feature of Pentelic marble which can
be noticed already at the quarry, but it can be shown also that the drums
do not reveal any of those alterations that are to be found in the marble
remains of temples known to have been destroyed by fire. Other similar
arguments had been presented by A. Sophianopoulos in 1938, so that it
can be stated outright that the column drums of the north wall and the
similar ones found throughout the Acropolis were not damaged by fire.
But, even supposing that there were traces of fire damage on the steps
of the Parthenon, once it is proved that there is no trace of fire in
the column drums, there is no longer any argument for ascribing the alleged
damage on the steps to the evens of 480 B.C., rather than to the many
vicissitudes of the temple through the centuries. Such traces of fire
do occur in other parts of the temple, for instance, quite clearly on
the inner side of the western pediment; these particular traces prove
that Pentelic marble exposed to fire turns gray, and not red.

But there remained to be explained the shift from Parthenon I to Parthenon
II; Dörpfeld concluded that this shift had to be connected in some
way with the end of the rule of the tyrants and the establishment of democracy,
dating thereby Parthenon I around 506 B.C., so that only the period between
the battle of Marathon (490 B.C.) and the battle of Salamis (479 B.C.)
remained available for Parthenon II. In 1934 W. Zschietzmann carried Dörpfeld’s
research to its logical conclusion: Parthenon I must have been initiated
by the tyrant Peisistratos (Zschietchmann chose the date of 540 B.C.)
and have been replaced by Parthenon II after the expulsion of the tyrants
and the establishment of democracy. This chronology is the only reasonable
one if one follows Dörpfeld’s approach, but it shows the weakness
of this approach, since it leads to an impossibly high date for Parthenon
I. This is the reason why the details of Dörpfeld’s chronology remained
vague and obscure.

The error of Dörpfeld’s second position, by which the substructure
was separated chronologically from the Cimonian Wall, was soon exposed
by the publication in 1906 of the report of the excavations conducted
in 1885-1889 by Kavvadias and Kawerau. These excavations, which removed
the entire earth filling between the substructure and the Cimonian Wall,
established with certainty that the strata in front of the substructure
are contemporary with it. The method used in erecting the substructure
consisted in placing one layer of blocks in position at a time and then
piling up earth in front of it in order to raise the level of the ground
to the height of the next layer. In the earth filling one can distinguish
the several strata of earth covered with chips of poros from the cutting
of the corresponding layer of the substructure. The strata of earth filling
that were gradually piled up in front of the substructure were retained
by the Cimonian Wall, except for the very lowest strata. The very lowest
strata were retained by a wall to which scholars have given the name S2,
meaning that it was the second wall on the south side. This wall ran in
front of the substructure, almost parallel to it, at a distance of more
than 10 meters at the southwest corner and more than 12 meters at the
southeast corner. The wall S2 substituted for the Pelasgic Wall in the
area south of the future Parthenon. Whereas the Pelasgic Wall followed
an irregular curved course, the wall S2 straightened this course more
to the inside, joining with the Pelasgic Wall in front of the southwest
corner of the Parthenon. From the manner in which the new wall joined
the Pelasgic Wall it can be established that at the time the wall S2 was
built the Pelasgic Wall had been violently thrown down. It may have been
thrown down either by the Persians or by the Athenians themselves after
the failure of the attempted oligarchic coup.

Whereas the filling piled up behind the Cimonian Wall was loose earth,
the filling piled up behind the wall S2 was of a more solid nature. It
consisted of remains of constructions destroyed by the Persians. The excavators,
Kavvadias and Kawerau, reported that the strata between wall S2 and the
substructure contained ”fragments of building blocks and sculptures of
poros” or, in other words, ”remains of destroyed buildings, votive offerings,
and other sculptured works.” They further remarked:

In the masses of earth there wee found, besides many
sherds of black-figured vases and even older vases, a greater number
of sherds of red-figured vases. The first group of findings indicates
that the fillings date after the destruction of many ancient buildings
and statues, whereas the fragments of red-figured vases demonstrate
that the mentioned destruction occurred at the earliest at the end
of the sixth or at the beginning of the fifth century. Therefore,
it must be considered a certain fact that here we are dealing with
the so-called ”Persian rubble,” and that, accordingly, the piling
up of the filling and with it the erection of the substructure took
place in the first half of the fifth century.

The authors of the report could not have been more explicit in dating
the substructure after 480 B.C. But they did not feel that it was their
task to enter into polemics with Dörpfeld who had dated it before
480 B.C., most probably because polemics did not belong in an architectural
report which aimed at being a strictly factual presentation of data. Hence,
after listing all the empirical data according to which the substructure
must be dated after the Persian destruction, Kavvadias and Kawerau added
a paragraph about the theory of Dörpfeld, pointing out that his theory
depends exclusively on the contention established ”through his own observation”
that ”there are really strong traces of fire on the steps of the older
Parthenon.” Diplomatically they contended that ”if this were to be proved,
one would have to agree with Dörpfeld.”!

Kavvadias and Kawerau were leaving to other scholars the task of deciding
whether the traces of fire allegedly seen by Dörpfeld really existed;
by implication they stated that they had not seen them. But other archaeologists
did not take up the challenge and preferred to continue to accept the
figment of the traces of fire which had become part of the folklore of
Acropolis archaeology.

The excavators had insisted that the filling between the wall S2 and
the substructure was made up of ”Persian rubble” (Perserschutt in German),
that is, of the fragments of buildings and sculptures destroyed by the
Persians in 480 B.C. The vase sherds found within the filling confirmed
that the rubble came from constructions which had been standing up to
480 B.C. As to the purpose of the wall S2, the excavators concluded that
it had been erected as a provisory retaining wall designed to retain the
filling while the Cimonian Wall was being erected. I propose a slightly
different explanation for the wall S2, even though I agree that it was
erected somewhat earlier than the Cimonian Wall. The wall S2, behind which
there was piled a filling of heavy stone rubble instead of loose earth,
served two purposes: it reinforced the foundations of the substructure
and, at the same time, it reduced the pressure of sliding materials against
the Cimonian Wall.

When Dörpfeld developed his theory he believed that the proto-Parthenon
had a crépis that consisted of the two layers of the poros substructure.
A new and important contribution to the history of the Parthenon was made
by the American archaeologist B. H. Hill when in April-May 1910 he discovered,
inside the marble steps of the Periclean Parthenon, the steps of another
temple, smaller in size. According to him the step of Karrha limestone
that Dörpfeld had taken as the highest step of Parthenon I was in
reality the lowest of the three steps of another temple (which I shall
call Parthenon II, following Dörpfeld’s terminology). The three steps
of Parthenon II are covered by the three steps of Parthenon III. Parthenon
II is much narrower than Parthenon III, but almost the same length. In
relation to Parthenon I, Parthenon II is narrower and shorter, but its
platform is exactly centered in relation to the upper edge of the substructure
(lowest step of Parthenon I). In other words, Parthenon II is recessed
in relation to the substructure by an equal space on the two flanks and
by an equal space on the two fronts. The key discovery of Hill was that
Parthenon II is so small in relation to the substructure that this must
have been planned for another temple, namely, Parthenon I: ”That the great
podium had not originally been designed to receive so small a temple seems
certain...” (p. 556).

As soon as Hill communicated his findings at the December 1910 meeting
of the Archaeological Institute of America, Dörpfeld revised his
position. Dörpfeld claimed that even earlier he had been inclined
to recognize the existence of two proto-Parthenons: One (Parthenon I)
for which the substructure had been planned; and the other (Parthenon
II), that discovered by Hill. By the time Hill published a preliminary
report of his survey in the American Journal of Archaeology of
1912, he and Dörpfeld had reached substantial agreement. If there
was any significant disagreement between the two, it concerned the steps
of the Parthenon. According to Hill Parthenon I had a platform with only
two steps of poros limestone, whereas Parthenon II had a platform with
three steps, of which the lowest was of Karrha limestone and the other
two were of Pentelic marble. According to Dörpfeld, Parthenon I had
a platform with only two steps of poros limestone, whereas Parthenon II
had a platform with three steps, of which the lowest was of Karrha limestone
and the other two were of Pentelic marble. According to Dörpfeld,
Parthenon I had a crepis of two steps of poros limestone with a stylobate
of Karrha limestone, which is a material harder than poros limestone,
whereas the step of Karrha limestone became the bottom step of the crépis
of the second proto-Parthenon. The blocks of Karrha limestone would have
been later moved and in some cases recut to be used as the lowest step
of Parthenon II. This was reasonable, since it was hardly credible that
columns of Pentelic marble would have been placed on a stylobate of poros.
Hill did not exclude completely the possibility that Dörpfeld’s interpretation
was the right one. According to Dörpfeld it was the second proto-Parthenon
that was destroyed by the Persians. But he never felt the need to review
his contention about the traces of fire, although there are no traces
of fire in the Karrha step and on the marble stylobate blocks of the second
proto-Parthenon.

As in other cases, Dörpfeld proved sound in matters of tectonic
archaeology, but weak in matters of historical reconstruction. Having
established that there had been three Parthenons, he proceeded in a heedless
manner when it came to dating them. In 1882 and 1892 he had dated the
substructure and Parthenon I in the Cimonian age; then, in 1902, he had
dated them before 480 B.C., because of the supposed traces of the Persian
fire, but had dated them as late as possible because of the chronological
datum provided by the Cimonian Wall. Now, in 1912, when confronted with
the existence of Parthenon II, he tried to solve the chronological difficulty
merely by shifting the traces of fire from the steps of Parthenon I to
the steps of Parthenon II. By this legerdemain he transferred the assumed
date of Parthenon I to Parthenon II. It would have been Parthenon II that
was under construction in 480 B.C. and was covered by a makeshift wooden
scaffolding which would have been put on fire by the Persians. Dörpfeld
never explained how the traces of fire, which he had claimed could be
clearly seen on the steps of Parthenon I, now should be seen on the steps
of Parthenon II. It is a fact that Hill, who discovered and described
Parthenon II, did not mention any traces of fire on the remains of this
structure. Since the date previously ascribed to Parthenon I was ascribed
to Parthenon II, the former had to be dated earlier. Parthenon I would
have been started in the age of the tyrants and left unfinished at their
fall. Dörpfeld never truly explained how this new date of the substructure
could be reconciled with the date of the Cimonian Wall and with the arrangement
of the strata between this wall and the substructure.

References

Penrose, however, contributed to later confusion of thought by referring
to the substructure by the word subbasement, which is a
barbaric rendering into English of the word subbaisement used by French
archaeologists, a word which in French is the equivalent of the English
foundation.